Republican Donald Trump may have won the U.S. election on Tuesday night, but according to current figures, Democrat Hillary Clinton netted at least 200,000 more individual votes than her billionaire opponent.

How is that possible?

In the United States, citizens do not directly elect the president. Rather, a presidential candidate must win on a state-by-state basis in order to receive their .

Electoral College votes are distributed to states based on their population, with populous California receiving 55 while the smallest states, like Delaware, receive only three. With 538 electoral votes up for grabs, a candidate must secure an absolute majority 鈥� 270 to be precise 鈥� in order to become the next president of the United States.

According to the latest numbers released by , Trump has netted at least 279 electoral votes, compared to Clinton鈥檚 228 -- and that鈥檚 despite Clinton receiving 206,458 more individual ballots than her opponent.

Vote tallying is still underway, and could take several more days to complete. And although there is little doubt that Trump won in terms of Electoral College votes, if Clinton does in fact secure the popular vote, she will go down in history as the fourth presidential candidate to lose in the Electoral College system despite being supported by a majority of American voters.

Interestingly, all of her unfortunate predecessors were Democrats:

  • In 1876, in one of the most controversial elections in U.S. history, Republican candidate Rutherford B. Hayes won the 23rd presidential election by earning 185 electoral votes over Democrat Samuel J. Tilden鈥檚 184. Tilden, however, netted 254,235 more individual votes than Hayes.
  • In 1888, Republican candidate Benjamin Harrison won the 26th presidential election, netting a whopping 233 electoral votes over Democrat incumbent Grover Cleveland鈥檚 168. Cleveland, however, earned 90,596 more individual votes than his opponent.
  • In the 2000 presidential election, Republican George W. Bush beat Democrat Al Gore by earning 271 electoral votes to Gore鈥檚 266. Gore, however, netted a whopping 543,895 more individual votes than Bush.

Candidates with dispersed, nationwide support tend to lose in the Electoral College system while those with strong state-specific support tend to benefit. That鈥檚 precisely why so much attention is paid during elections to battleground states: that is, states like Florida and Michigan that historically flip-flop between supporting Republican and Democratic presidential candidates. Trump, for example, carried Michigan by a margin of only 0.25 per cent, essentially negating the more than 2.2 million votes cast for Clinton in that state. Clinton, meanwhile, took California's 55 electoral votes with at least 2.5 million more individual votes than Trump. Had she only won the state by a few thousand individual votes, the results in California would have been the same.

鈥淩emember, we鈥檙e competing in a rigged election,鈥� Trump told supporters at a rally in Green Bay Wisconsin on Oct. 17. That refrain 鈥� suggesting that the election was stacked in Clinton鈥檚 favour 鈥� was repeated throughout Trump鈥檚 campaign.

On election night in 2012, when President Barack Obama soundly beat Republican nominee Mitt Romney, Trump even turned to Twitter to express his distaste for the current U.S. electoral system, saying, 鈥淭he electoral college is a disaster for a democracy.鈥�

Trump may have a very different view today.

To change the system would require a constitutional amendment. Such an amendment would need two thirds support in both Congress and the Senate, then ratification by three quarters of America鈥檚 50 states.

Numerous attempts have been made to reform the system in the past. All have failed. It鈥檚 uncertain whether the new Republican administration, which swept into power thanks to the current electoral system, will revisit the issue.